SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Kar) 580

MOHAMED ANWAR
LAXMINARAYAN ENTERPRISES – Appellant
Versus
LAXMINARAYAN TEXTILE – Respondent


MOHAMED ANWAR, J.

( 1 ) BOTH these Revisions are directed against the interim orders of the trial Court passed, rejecting the petitioners'-Defendants' I. A. No. II under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and I. A. III under Order 18, Rule 17, r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in O. S. No. 38/1993 pending ex parte on its file.

( 2 ) ). The said O. S. No. 38/1993 has been instituted by the respondents-plaintiffs against petitioners-defendants for recovery of certain amount of money. It is not in dispute that on service of Court summons, petitioners had put in their appearance through their learned counsel in the suit proceeding and had failed to file their written statement within the time granted by the trial Court and also that the learned counsel appearing for them did not choose to cross-examine the plaintiff who was examined as PW-1 at the trial. Therefore, when the case was, on conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, set down for pronouncement of judgment, the petitioners-defendants came forward with the aforesaid applications, viz. I. A. Nos. II and III, praying that they may be permitted to file the written statement and to recall PW-1 for their cross-e









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top